Return-path: <linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.156]:28036 "EHLO
	fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753211AbYJBL1i (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:27:38 -0400
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 19so724140fgg.17
        for <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1ba2fa240810020427m307404b6x434830e2a3e5bf1b@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20081002_132742_632661_30A772A5)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 14:27:36 +0300
From: "Tomas Winkler" <tomasw@gmail.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4] mac80211: re-enable aggregation on 2.6.27
Cc: "Luis Rodriguez" <Luis.Rodriguez@atheros.com>,
	"johannes@sipsolutions.net" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	"linville@tuxdriver.com" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <43e72e890810011216y17c3f4a6v28c74215c023ecb2@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <1222790548-7391-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com>
	 <1ba2fa240809301318p16bedbdr31fdaea97c3cf3be@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080930152524.GA8131@tesla>
	 <1ba2fa240809301707i22cab6b7hb1b22fc88ebda7f0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <43e72e890810011216y17c3f4a6v28c74215c023ecb2@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<lrodriguez@atheros.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Tomas Winkler <tomasw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>> <lrodriguez@atheros.com> wrote:
>>> A quick test indicates it works but the removal is still an issue.
>>
>> I didn't implement it yet I just wanted a feedback if I'm in correct
>> direction with the starting part.
>
> Seems reasonable so far, my concern so far was just the introduction
> of a new spinlock for the ba_session list, but I can't see yet a
> better way.
>
> At this point I've given up hope of this getting merged but I do think
> distributions using 2.6.27 will want this anyway so we might as well
> finish the job and maintain it ourselves should it not get merged.
> What do you think?
>
>> yes ieee80211_init_agg()
>
> Thanks, I'm using this now.
>
>>> I don't think it was locking before under the code which is now
>>> under initiate_aggr_and_timer() though.
>>
>> Correct you cannot lock this part it leads to soft lock.
>
> Oh ok v3 had this order.
>
>  Luis
>
I'm proposing to drop this implementation at all and focus on correct
solution , this is just too messy.
Maybe develop it over 2.6.27 so it will be maybe merge to stable
release as well.

Tomas